The Limitations upon the Power 

of the Hebrew Kings 

~ 7 

A STUDY IN HEBREW DEMOCRACY 



Thesis presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the 
University of Pennsylvania in Partial Fulfilment of the 
Requirements for the Degree of 
Doctor of Philosophy 



BY 

M. WILLARD LAMPE 



Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 
1914 



The Limitations upon the Power 
of the Hebrew Kings 



A STUDY IN HEBREW DEMOCRACY 



Thesis presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the 
University of Pennsylvania in Partial Fulfilment of the 
Requirements for the Degree of 
Doctor of Philosophy 



BY 
M. WILLARD LAMPE 



Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 
1914 



r\ 






.v*\<u 



Gin 

JON 4 I3,'4 



TO MY FATHER 

TO WHOM I OWE ALL MY INTEREST IN 
THE OLD TESTAMENT 



Acknowledgment 

For kindly interest and helpful sugges- 
tion, I desire to acknowledge my indebt- 
edness to Professor Morris Jastrow, Jr., 
and Assistant Professor James A. Mont- 
gomery, of the University of Pennsylvania, 
and to Professor Albert T. Clay, of Yale. 

To Thomas Nelson & Sons my thanks 
are due for permission to quote from the 
American Standard Bible. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

Chapter I. Introduction. Origin and General Nature of the Limi- 
tations, 
i. The Hebrews' Estimate of Their Kingship. 

2. Semitic Individualism, (a) Lack of Capacity for 

Organized Government, (b) Popular Participa- 
tion in Public Affairs. 

3. Semitic Religious Beliefs and Practices. The Religion 

of Yahweh: Its Priests, Laws and Prophets. 

4. The Geography of Palestine. 

Chapter II. The Period of the Judges and the First Attempts at 
Kingship. 

1. The Isolation of the Hebrew Tribes and the Assimi- 

lation of Canaanitish Civilization. 

2. The Rise and Activities of the Judges. 

3. The Nature of Saul's Kingship. 

4. Terms Used for the Hebrew Kings. 
Chapter III. The Kingdom of David and Solomon. 

1. Its Organization and the Powers of the King. 

2. Its Weaknesses and the Checks upon the King. 
Chapter IV. The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. 

1. The Jeroboam Revolt. 

2. Special Developments of the Period. 

3. The Restrictions upon the Central Power. 
Chapter V. The Ideal Kingship. 

1. The King in His Relation to God. 

2. The King in His Relation to the People. 

3. Some Pictures of the Ideal King. 
Bibliography. 



The Limitations upon the Power 
of the Hebrew Kings. 

CHAPTER I. 

Introduction. Origin and General Nature of the 
Limitations. 

The estimate which the Old Testament puts upon the 
Hebrew monarchy varies according to the age and point of 
view of its different writers. On the whole, the earlier writers 
seem more favorable to it than the later. When the later 
ones praise it, the eschatological or ideal, not the historical 
kingdom, is meant. Budde thinks that "bei weitem iiberwiegt, 
am Anfang wie am Ende, und selbst in der Mitte nicht ohne 
kraftige Vertretung, die giinstige Anshauung von Konigtums, 
die es von dem Gotte Israels selbst seinem Volke zum 
Segen eingesetzt weiss." 1 There are many passages which 
lend support to this view ; e. g. the account of Saul's selection 
in 1 Sam. 9-10: 16, the divine covenant with the House of 
David in 2 Sam. 7, and the numerous passages in which David 
is called "The Servant of Yahweh," and the Davidic kingship 
viewed as a type of the glories of the coming age. 2 But so 
far as the purely historic kingship is concerned, the growth of 
a decidedly unfavorable view becomes apparent with the suc- 
cessive writers. Indeed, the conception of a future ideal 
monarchy was doubtless stimulated by a sense of the failure 
of the historic monarchy. The Law of the King, in Deut. 
17: 14-17, and the Manner of the King, in 1 Sam. 8: 11-18, 
reveal the kind of grievances which led the people to complain 
and the prophets to protest against their kings. Hosea's atti- 
tude is very clear. In 2:2, he calls the coming king simply a 



1 Budde : Schatzung des Konigtums im A. T., S. 32. 

2 See also Gen. 17 : 6, 16 ; 35 : 11 ; 49 : 10, 26 ; Num. 23: 21 ; 24 : 7 ; 
Deut. 33 : 16. 

7 



y* os, and his remarks in 13:4, 10, 11, seem to indicate that he 
thought there was no place at all for a human kingship in a 
theocracy. Cornill interprets Hosea as teaching that the state 
was "ein Anflehnung gegen Gott," and that in the future there 
would be no king or princes or politics. 3 The Books of the 
Kings, in their final form, condemn, without exception, the 
rulers of the kingdom of Israel, who "departed not from all 
the sins of Jeroboam," and as for the kings of Judah, the 
majority are condemned for doing "that which is evil in the 
sight of Jehovah." 4 Ezekiel utterly discards the term melek 
in his description of the coming Davidic ruler, and substitutes 
for it the colorless word nasi', 5 which can be used as a desig- 
nation for any chief or distinguished man. 6 But some of the 
prophets go even farther than this, and in their pictures of the 
latter days fail to mention any kind of a human monarchy at 
all. This is true e. g. of Isaiah 40-48, Joel 3 and Malachi 3-4. 
These facts can be explained only on the theory that the mon- 
archy never really became part and parcel of Hebrew life. 
The institution was brought into being as a necessity, its 
advantages were appreciated, and its greater representatives 
called forth the praise and fostered the pride of the nation, 
but all along one cannot avoid the impression that "the king- 
dom could never find," as Graetz puts it, "a natural place in 
the system of Israel's organization, but was at all times re- 
garded by more discerning minds as a foreign element." 7 

This view is further borne out by the fact, which it will 
be the purpose of this thesis to show, viz : that the monarchy 
in Israel was subject to certain checks and balances, which, in 
varying degree, circumscribed the power of the kings and safe- 
guarded the liberties of the people. In this chapter, it is pro- 
posed to indicate the origin and general nature of these checks. 

To understand Semitic temperament, one must study 
Arabia and the Arab. Renan's opinion that "C'est vraiment 



3 Cornill, Der Israelitische Prophetismus. S. 55. 

4 All Bible quotations in English are from the American Standard 
Version, published by Thomas Nelson and Sons. 

B See e. g. Ezek. 34: 24; 37: 25; 45: 7. In 37: 22, 24, melek is 
used, but the LXX avoids the term. 

6 Comp. Gen. 23:6; Ex. 16 : 22 ; 22 : 27 ; Num. 1 : 16, 44. 

7 Graetz, History of the Jews, Vol. I, p. 81. 

8 



Tarabie qui doit etre prise pour mesure de l'esprit semitique," 8 
is shared generally by scholars today. In the pre-Islamic 
Arab and the modern Bedouin, we see the type of the ancient 
Hebrew. The outstanding trait of this type may be expressed 
as a strong individualism within the tribal bond. In the wil- 
derness and desert of Arabia, every individual must, for his 
own protection, attach himself to some tribe, but within the 
tribe he is a free man. He is subject, of course, to the cus- 
tomary law of the community, violation of which would mean 
death or banishment, but he is under no necessity of yielding 
to the external authority of any one or group of his tribes- 
men. In spite of the strength of the religious and blood bonds, 
the individual can leave one camp and join another, and whole 
clans can desert one tribe and attach themselves to another. 9 
No majority is big enough to coerce the individual. "Selbst 
der Versuch," says E. Meyer, "ein einzelnes widerstrebendes 
Geschlecht oder Individuum unter dem Willen der Mehrheit 
zu zwingen, wurde als unberechtigte Gewaltsamkeit gelten, die 
zu Blutfehde und Zersprengung des Stammverbandes fuhrt." 10 
It cannot be claimed for the Arabs of the present day that they 
compare favorably in all points with their progenitors of pre- 
Islamic times, but this passion for individual freedom seems 
to have remained unimpaired. Its fierceness has been dis- 
played in connection with the attempts made by the Turkish 
government to conscribe the Arabs in the Turkish army, and 
in their preference for death rather than submission to this 
abridgment of their personal freedom. 11 

One of the corollaries of Semitic individualism is lack of 
capacity for political government. Only strong pressure, such 
as dire need, religious motive or despotic power, has ever 
formed Semites into an organized state. Not until the time of 
Darius, the Persian, did any government in western Asia pos- 
sess corporate unity. 12 The Semites seem always to have pro- 
ceeded on the theory of maintaining the independence of the 
smallest social unit consistent with the demands of self-preser- 

8 E. Renan, Histoire des langues Semitiques, p. 14. 

9 See Benzinger, Hebraische Archaoiogie. S. 295 ff. 

10 E. Meyer. Geschichte des Altertums, Zweite Auflage, 1 : 2 ; S. 363. 

11 See William T. Ellis, in The Continent for January 19, 191 1. 

12 See MeCurdy, History, Prophecy and the Monuments, I, p. 29 ff. 

9 



vation and the instincts of kinship and religion. Whenever 
the force of circumstances compelled the smaller units to com- 
bine into a larger one, the resultant unity would be so artificial 
that the removal of the immediate cause for its existence 
would be followed, as a rule, by a falling away again of the 
smaller parts. Within the clan or tribe itself there has been 
little vested authority or political solidarity. From time im- 
memorial the sheik has been, and still is, only a primus inter 
pares. His duty is merely to be a leader whenever a leader is 
needed, to act as umpire in disputes, to preside in the council 
of elders, to represent his clan or tribe in negotiations with 
others, and to direct in war, if he is able to do so. His deci- 
sions and advice have no binding authority, and he "cannot 
order the slightest punishment upon any member of the tribe." 13 
The power of the elders, or leading men of the tribe, like that 
of the sheik, is not the result of delegated authority, but is 
dependent upon such factors as personal wisdom and bravery, 
the amount of one's private property and the hereditary dig- 
nity of the inner social group to which one belongs. 14 Such 
an organization is clearly a very imperfect one, furnishing no 
adequate protection either to the individual or the tribe. 

Another corollary of Semitic individualism is the persist- 
ence of the popular voice in the affairs of established states. 
G. W. Thatcher calls attention to an Arabian tradition con- 
cerning Jabala ibn Aikam, prince of Ghassan, "who accepted 
Islam, after fighting against it, but finding it too democratic, 
returned to Christianity and exile." 15 The power of the As- 
syrian kings, their boastful public records to the contrary not- 
withstanding, was limited by the council of elders and by state 
parties, chiefly the military and priestly. In the city-states of 
Phoenicia, the merchant families were paramount from the 
earliest times, the government being monarchical only in 
form. The king had to act "nach dem Beschlussen eines 
Beiraths, nach dem Willen der Vertreter einer patrizischer 
Geschlechter." 16 The prevalence of the elective principle in 



18 Benzinger, Article, "Law and Justice," in Ency. Bib. 
34 See Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, Zvveite Auflage, I: 
363- 

15 Ency. Brit., nth Ed., Art, "Arabia," p. 265. 
10 Pietschmann, Die Phonizier. S. 238 

10 



Semitic governments is one of the best evidences of their 
democracy. In the records of the South Arabian kingdoms, 
there are references to seven electoral princes. 17 The king- 
dom of Israel had its birth in a popular election, and its fre- 
quent change of dynasties warrants Ewald's assertion that 
"dieses Reich wesentlich ein wahlreich blieb." 18 In Islam the 
first Khalifs were freely elected by the Community of the 
Faithful. The Kharijite sects originated in a protest against 
the willingness of Ali, who had been regularly elected, to 
arbitrate his claim with Muawiya, his rival. The validity of 
the principle of election has been recognized by the orthodox 
Moslems down to this day, the Shi'ite sects alone holding to a 
divine appointment or hereditary legitimacy superior to it. 19 

This strand of individualism, with its fibers of loose gov- 
ernment and popular participation in public affairs, thus runs 
through Semitic history generally. Nowhere, however, is it 
more strikingly prominent than among the Hebrew people. 
Its course to the end of the monarchy we will trace in the fol- 
lowing chapters, but we must not suppose that it disappeared 
with the monarchy. Individualism has been characteristic of 
the Hebrews as a race. It is a trait which has appeared in all 
their history, and is as marked today as ever. "No Jewish 
people or nation now exists," writes Zangwill, "no Jews 
even as sectarians of a specific faith with a specific center of 
authority such as the Catholics or the Wesleyans possess; 
nothing but a multitude of individuals, a mob hoplessly 
amorphous, divided alike in religion and political destiny. 
There is no common platform from which the Jews can be 
addressed, no common council to which any appeal can be 
made." 20 

Another class of checks upon the power of the king in 
Israel grew out of the religious beliefs and practices of the 
people. As the most disintegrating factor among Semites 



17 See D. H. Miiller, Art, "Sabeans," in Ency. Brit., nth Ed., 
P- 957- 

18 Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel. Ill, S. 447. 

19 See MacDonald, Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence and Consti- 
tutional Theory, p. 54. 

20 Israel Zangwill, "The Jewish Race," in The Independent, Aug. 
10, 19 EI. 

II 



has been lack of capacity for organic government, so the strong- 
est bond has been religion. It was a deep conviction with every 
Semite in ancient times that the social group to which he 
belonged, be it clan, tribe or nation, was dependent for its 
very existence upon a close solidarity with its god. This belief 
appears, for example, in the explanation which the Syrians 
gave of their defeat by the Israelites : "Their god is a god of 
the hills; therefore they were stronger than we, but let us 
fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger 
than they" (1 K. 20: 23). A change of clan relationship or a 
transfer of residence involved the adoption of new gods, 21 
for prosperity was impossible to those "who know not the law 
of the god of the land" (2 K. 17:26). The idea of the god 
of a community being its real king and land-owner goes 
back to the earliest times among Semitic states. Among the 
early Babylonians "when one city made war upon another, it 
was because their gods were at feud ; the territory of the city 
was the property of the city god, and when a treaty of delimi- 
tation was proposed, it was naturally the gods themselves who 
arranged it and drew up its provisions." 22 As for the Hebrews, 
Piepenbring is fully justified in stating that "La tendance 
theocratique fut si profondement enracinee en Israel qu'elle a 
du faire partie de sa foi primitive." 23 

Such religious concepts made the will of the deity, as 
communicated through the oracle, of binding authority upon 
all classes of the people. The usual recipients and custodians 
of the oracle were the priests, and as in the primitive family 
the father was chief priest, so in the early state the king held 
this office. Frazer regards the king as essentially a. priestly 
personage, a development from the magician or medicine man 
of earlier society. 24 This view finds support in the history of 
Semitic states. In the South Arabian kingdom of Saba, the 
earlier rulers were called mukarrib, which means presenter or 
offerer, i. e., priest-king. This has its parallel in Babylonia, 
where the early rulers bore the name patesi, a distinctively 



21 See Ruth i : 16, and I Sam. 26 : 19. 

22 King, History of Sumer and Akkad, p. 101. 

23 Piepenbring, Histoire du Penple D'israel, p. 225. 

24 Frazer, Lectures on the Early History of the Kingship, pp. 
149-152. 



12 



religious term, indicating of the one to whom it was applied 
that he was the representative of his god. With the increase 
of the secular power of the patesis, they took the title king, 
but this was not accompanied by any limitation of their priestly 
functions. On the contrary, they came to be looked upon as 
incarnate gods, worshipped both before and after death. 
Naram-Sin, e. g., is called the "god of Agade." 25 This extreme 
position was modified with the coming of the Kassites, but the 
distinctively priestly character of Babylonian and Assyrian 
kings was never lost. It is to be noted, however, that the royal 
priesthood in these countries did not carry with it the support 
of the priesthood at large. On the contrary, the priests, own- 
ing as they did a large part of the landed property, and engag- 
ing extensively in trade and industry, possessed the power, 
which they often used, of causing trouble for the throne. 
From the reign of Tiglath-pileser III to the end of the As- 
syrian Empire, e. g., the internal politics of Assyria centered 
about the conflict between two parties, the secular or military 
nobles, and the priests, who were represented chiefly in Baby- 
lon. In this conflict, with its series of revolutions, only two 
of the kings, Sargon and Esarhaddon, supported, and were 
supported by, the priestly class. 26 

The Old Testament shows that in Israel, too, the kings 
were priests. The passages, however, are so few in which 
priestly functions are assigned to royalty that it is fair to sup- 
pose, as does Benzinger, 27 that this feature of the king's pre- 
rogative was not as marked here as elsewhere — a view sup- 
ported also by the fact that in many contexts where both kings 
and priests are mentioned there is a clear differentiation of 
persons and functions. 28 However, the priests, as a class, cer- 
tainly constituted a check upon the throne. Although they 
were subject in the royal towns to appointment and removal 
by the king, their hereditary rights were generally respected, 
and the integrity of their position is indicated by the existence 
of a definite organization among them. 29 Much of their cor- 



25 See King, History of Sumer and Akkad, pp. 106, 251, 298. 

26 See Winckler, History of Babylonia and Assyria, pp. 243-245. 

27 Benzinger, Hebraische Archaologie, S. 307. . 

28 See e. g. Jer. 2: 8; Micah 3: 11; Ezek. 7: 26, 27. 

29 Note the phrase, "Elders of the Priests," in 2 Kings 19 : 2, and 
Jer. 19: 1. 

13 



porate strength was due to their intimate association with the 
people as the custodians of their health, the guardians of their 
shrines, the directors of their religious observances and repre- 
sentatives in general before Yahweh. Their greatest power, 
however, issued from their relation to the divine law or torah, 
of which they were the mouthpieces, interpreters, teachers 
and custodians. Thus, they, and not the king, were looked 
upon as constituting the original fountain of justice, and 
every one, including the king, was subject to the law devel- 
oped by their oracles and judicial decisions. 

The kings, indeed, possessed judicial authority. In an- 
cient times the chief military or political power was ipso facto 
supreme judge. In Ps. 2 : 10, and Hosea 7 : 7, melek and sophet 
are used synonymously. As in Babylonia, so also in Israel, 
appeal from a local court to the king was perfectly in order. 
But the independent judicial power of the Hebrew priests not 
only is suggested by the constant reference throughout the Old 
Testament to their judicial activity, but is clearly asserted in 
Deuteronomy where the duties of both kings and priests are 
defined and superior judicial functions assigned to the latter. 
In Deut. 17: 8-13 e. g. the priests are given the priority in the 
composition of the nation's supreme tribunal, while the king, 
here called sophet, although included, seems to be mentioned 
almost incidentally. 30 The exact relation between priestly and 
other jurisdiction is not clear, but enough is known to warrant 
the opinion of Stade that the king would have suppressed the 
priestly courts, if he had had the power to do so. 31 

Of all the checks, however, which religion supplied to 
limit the growth of despotism in the Hebrew monarchy, the 
most prominent and unique was that furnished by the growth 
of the prophetic office. The origin of this office and its early 
development do not concern us here. Suffice it to say that 
what was at first an order of men, whose utterances were 
ecstatic, and whose methods probably analogous to those of 
the whirling dervishes of our day (e. g. 1 Sam. 19:24), de- 
veloped, contemporaneously with the monarchy, into a group 
of individuals who, for religious insight, ethical perception, 
moral courage and strength of personality, stand out in boldest 



30 See also Deut. 19: 16-19; 21 : 1-7. 

31 Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel. I, S. 412. 

14 



relief against the whole background of ancient times. Nothing 
fairly analogous to them can be found in any nation of an- 
tiquity. Their power is to be explained by various considera- 
tions. In the first place, they claimed to be, and generally were 
accepted to be, the direct representatives of Yahweh. Indeed, 
the prophetic deliverance was torah, possessing the same au- 
thority and requiring the same obedience as that of the priest. 32 
Thus saith Yahweh, was the imprimatur of the prophet's ut- 
terance, and on the strength of this he could raise his voice 
with confidence against kings and dynasties. In the second 
place, the prophets were the champions of the people against 
all forms of social wrong. Their spirit was intensely demo- 
cratic and fervidly human. They came from the people, being 
confined to no caste or even sex. Untrammeled by any official 
connection with church or state, they could speak according to 
the dictates of conscience alone. They were the outstanding 
patriots of their time. In their prophecies they frequently 
identified themselves with the people, as in Isa. 53, and the 
depth of their interest in the national welfare was revealed in 
outbursts of passion, like Jeremiah's, "O that my head were 
waters and my eyes a fountain of tears that I might weep day 
and night for the slain of the daughter of my people" (9: 1). 
Finally, if to these two sanctions of the prophetic office, viz: 
the divine and the popular, one adds the personal traits of the 
prophets themselves, their fearlessness and independence, he 
can understand the influence they were able to exert upon the 
rulers of the nation. There were, indeed, counter-checks to 
this influence. The official prophetic guilds, which became 
increasingly aristocratic and subservient to the state, the false 
prophets "which divined for money" (Mic. 3:11), and the 
caprice and fickleness of the people, frequently thwarted the 
purpose of the writing prophets and their like. But even 
when their purpose was thwarted, their voice was heard with 
fear, and they remained to the last the most vigilant sentinels 
of the nation and the most intrepid denunciators of evil in 
high and low alike. 

The religion of Yahweh was the strongest bond between 
the B e ne Yisra'el. It was a force, however, which as strongly 
resisted aggression as it fostered union. It developed a spirit 



32 See Isaiah i: io; Jer. 26: 4-6. 

15 



of violence against yokes of all kinds, whether imposed from 
within or without. In the course of its history, unfortunately, 
it became adulterated with beliefs and practices of a lower 
grade than its own, and this admixture weakened the nation's 
resistive force against personal aggrandizement ; but, even then, 
the actual result did not seem to be so much a growth of des- 
potism as a general demoralization of the nation entire. 
Throughout the course of the monarchy no Hebrew king ever 
entirely released his throne from checks sanctioned and sus- 
tained by the religion of Yahweh. 

To complete this general survey of the factors of limita- 
tion upon the central power in Israel, a glance must be taken 
at the geography of Palestine. For of the checks thus far 
discussed, the political especially received strong reinforce- 
ment from the physical features of this land. Geographically, 
Palestine is as broken as Greece. The Lebanon ranges and the 
low-lying Jordan valley between them form three well-defined 
parallel sections running from north to south. The western 
Lebanon range is broken by the Plain of Esdraelon, north of 
which lie the plateaus and small east-and-west running ranges 
of Galilee, and south of which are the mountains of Samaria, 
which converge to form the high and broken table-land of 
Judaea. The range to the east of the Jordan is not so broken 
as its western counterpart. It is made up principally of high 
plateaus ; but in Gilead, which is the part of this section figur- 
ing most in Hebrew history, the cross-valleys are more numer- 
ous than in either Hauran, to the north, or Moab, to the south. 
The diversity of physical features in Palestine is sharp within 
small compass. The average altitude of the table-land of 
Judaea is 2400 feet; the Dead Sea lies 1300 feet below sea- 
level. The soil of Samaria produces husbandmen; that of 
Judaea, shepherds. From the Jordan valley, in summer, with 
the temperature at 100° F., one can see snow on Hermon. In 
view of such diversity of soil, climate and land-formation, it 
is not surprising that the peoples which have inhabited Pales- 
tine have been of diverse types, and that there can be main- 
tained there side by side, as at the present day, the most dis- 
tinct forms of culture and life. The Hebrew monarchy 
throughout its history suffered from this lack of geographical 
homogeneity. It could never fully overcome the barriers which 

16 



nature had placed between the different sections of the land. 
The defence of the borders was always difficult, and it was 
next to impossible to carry on any uniform internal adminis- 
tration or effectively to quell any local insubordination or 
revolt. 33 



33 See G. A. Smith, The Historical Geography of the Holy Land. 
In Chap. II will be found the source of some of the above material, 

17 



CHAPTER II. 

The Period of the Judges and the First Attempts at 

Kingship. 

The entrance of the Hebrews into the land of Canaan 
was accompanied by momentous changes in their habits of life 
and in their relations to each other. The abandonment of 
nomadic life for permanent settlements and agricultural pur- 
suits involved isolation from each other. This was increased 
both by the physical features of the country and by the pre- 
occupation of the Canaanites, whom the Israelites were able 
only partially to dislodge. The Canaanite cities of Beth-shean, 
Taanach, Dor, Ibleam and Megiddo, situated in the Plain of 
Esdraelon, separated the northern from the central tribes, 
while these latter were shut off from their more southern kins- 
men by Har-heres, Aijalon and Shaalbim. (Jud. 1:27, 35.) 
Perhaps the best single evidence of this tribal isolation is 
Deborah's song of victory over the Canaanites, in which it 
appears that some of the tribes very close to the scene of con- 
flict did not participate in it. (Jud. 5: 15-17.) 

Isolated thus from each other, the Hebrews gradually 
came to associate with their Canaanite neighbors. The cities 
which they failed to capture in war they assimilated in peace. 
Intermarriage, commercial relations, political and religious 
alliances broke up to a considerable extent the old tribal 
arrangements and formed new social units. In the town of 
Shechem, for example, Canaanites and Hebrews freely inter- 
mingled and called their common god by the significant name 
ba c al-b e rlth. (Jud. 8: 33; 9.) This amalgamating process, 
however, did not destroy tribal and clan consciousness among 
the Hebrews, but only added a new element to it. The subse- 
quent development of the Hebrew state may be said to have 
resulted from the union of two bonds; a spiritual one, — the 
sense of racial and religious kinship, and a material one, — the 
prepared Canaanite soil upon which the Hebrews settled. It 
is literally true that the Hebrews developed their distinctive 

18 



civilization because they remembered Yahweh when they came 
to possess cities which they had not built, houses which they 
had not filled, cisterns which they had not hewn, vineyard and 
olive trees which they had not planted. (Deut. 6: 10-12.) In 
other words,, the evolution of civilization here, as elsewhere, 
resulted from the coalescence of two different kinds of 
civilization. 

The Canaanites influenced Hebrew life most in furnishing 
a model for the organisation of government on a local terri- 
torial basis. Were it not for this, the tribes could not have 
passed so readily or uniformly from nomadic to settled life. 
The territorial unit adopted was the city with its daughters, 
i. e., its dependent villages and environs, and the government 
of this was vested in the heads of all the free families within 
it. The general name applied to these officials was z e qenim 
(elders), and the number in each city varied according to the 
number of clans or families. In the small town of Succoth 
there were seventy seven. (Jud. 8: 14.) The existence of a 
select group of officials among the elders themselves is indi- 
cated by the use of sarim in connection with z e qenim, — a datum 
made use of by Sulzberger in support of his thesis that the 
Hebrews had a bi-cameral parliament, known in early times 
as the Edah, and in later times as the Am-ha-Aretz. 34 

The functions of the city elders, although different in 
form and of greater variety, were essentially the same as 
those of the elders of the tribe. They were, first and fore- 
most, representatives of the whole body of citizens. This is 
evidenced, for example, by the fact that a sentence of death, 
pronounced by them, was carried out by the community 
(Deut. 17 : 2-7). They were both judges and executives, being 
called in the former capacity soph e tim, and in the latter 
sot e rim. S5 They were also the directors of military policy 
(1 Sam. 11:3) and mediators between their constituencies 
and outsiders (1 Sam. 16:4). 

Thus the cities with which the Hebrews became identified 
after their entrance into Canaan were self-governing com- 



34 M. Sulzberger, The x\m-ha-Aretz. 

55 See Deut. 16 : 18 ; Joshua 8 : 33 ; and Nowack, Hebraische 
Archaology, p. 322, with note. 

19 



munities. Their relation to the monarchy when it arose will 
be discussed in the sequel, but it may here be added that the 
vigor with which they maintained their rights is indicated by 
the persistence of the elders' office and functions throughout 
the monarchy and beyond. In the settlements of the exile, the 
elders were still the representatives of the people and the 
directors of their affairs ; 36 they led in the return from exile 
and in building the temple ; 37 it was with them that the Persian 
governor dealt, 38 and general administrative powers were still 
in their hands. 39 Indeed, the Gerousia of the Greek period 
was without doubt a development of the Council of Elders, 
for "the Gerousia, the Great Synagogue and the Sanhedrin 
were not mushrooms which sprang up over night, but giant 
trees whose seeds were planted centuries before, in the minds 
and hearts of the people." 40 

The disorganization among the Hebrews prior to the 
monarchy is well described by the historian who wrote: 
"There was no king in Israel ; every man did that which was 
right in his own eyes." The force which did away with this 
condition was the religion of Yahweh acting under the 
stimulus of foreign oppression. The fields and flocks belong- 
ing to the Hebrews invited raids which they found them- 
selves unable to ward off. This meant not only destitution 
and oppression for them, but humiliation for Yahweh ! Hence 
the wars of Yahweh, to defend his honor and free his land 
from the possession of those who were not his servants. The 
united effort which was thus secured was at first only local 
and temporary. Under the rallying cry of one who was a fit 
leader, the Hebrews of a certain locality would resist a raid or 
throw off an oppression, and, their object accomplished, con- 
ditions would resume much as before. The leader of such a 
move was called sophet, in conformity with the ancient prac- 
tice of associating the right to judge with the ability to rule. 
There is no evidence that the earlier of these soph e thn 



36 Ezek. 8: i; 20: t; Jer. 29: 1. 

37 Ezra 6 : 7, 14. 

38 Ezra 5 : 9 ; 6 : 7. 
3 »Ezra 10: 7, 8, 14. 

40 Sulzberger, The Am-ha-Aretz, p. 77. 

20 



attempted to retain special powers after their specific mission 
was performed, but as time went on, marked tendencies 
appeared in two directions; the unions of resistance became 
wider in scope, and the soph e tim showed disinclination to 
resign all their powers when the crisis which called them forth 
had been successfully met. 

The first extensive federation of the tribes was under 
the leadership of Deborah of Ephraim, and Barak of 
Naphtali, and was directed against the Canaanites of the 
Plain of Esdraelon and the north. The nucleus of the federa- 
tion seems to have been Zebulon and Naphtali (Jud. 4: 10; 
5:18), but assistance was furnished by Ephraim, Benjamin, 
Manasseh, Issachar and probably Reuben (Jud. 5:14-16). 
However, the leaders and the federation itself disappear from 
view after a single victory is won. 

Gideon of Manasseh also secured support in his campaigns 
from other tribes than his own (Jud. 6:35; 7:23, 24). But 
the important fact about him is that he was the first sophet 
actually to establish permanent personal authority over his 
tribe. He became to all intents and purposes a king, as is 
evidenced by the offer of an hereditary kingship to him 
(Jud. 8:22), by the priestly functions which he exercised 
(vs. 27), and by the name of his son, Abimelech, who also 
became king, although not without difficulty (Jud. 9:1-6). 
With the death of Abimelech, however, there was no attempt 
to secure a succession, but "the men of Israel departed every 
man unto his place" (vs. 55). 

Jephthah was another sophet who retained his power 
after the performance of a; special task (Jud. 11:8-11). 
Indeed, he would not consent to act as leader at all without 
the promise of continued recognition as such. He was not 
called king, however, but only ro's. 

It is important to note that in all these miniature king- 
ships the initiative was taken by the people themselves or by 
their representatives. The crown was offered to Gideon by 
the men of Israel (Jud. 8: 22) ; Abimelech was made king by 
the men of Shechem (Jud. 9:6); and it was the elders of 
Gilead who said to Jephthah "thou shalt be our head" (Jud. 
11:8). 

21 



The path to national kingship was prepared by these 
soph e tim, and to a real federation of the tribes by these occa- 
sional alliances. Fortunately, this path had been prepared by 
the time of the appearance of the Philistine menace, for the 
Philistines were not an enemy which could be kept at bay 
by any makeshift means. It required permanent leadership, 
even in times of comparative peace, to secure military effi- 
ciency against them. An individual possessing the qualifica- 
tions for such leadership was found by the patriot-seer 
Samuel in Saul of Benjamin, who, accordingly, was anointed 
by him to be naghidh over the inheritance of Yahweh ( 1 Sam. 
10:1). The people, however, would not fully accept Saul 
until he had proved his worth. An opportunity of doing this 
was presented in the siege of Jabesh-Gilead, to the relief of 
which he roused the tribes, winning a glorious victory. Then 
it was that "all the people went to Gilgal, and there they 
made Saul king" (1 Sam. 11: 15). 

The kingship of Saul was of a purely military kind. He 
did practically nothing in the way of internal administration. 
There was no court or cabinet, properly speaking, much less a 
system of royal district officials. Gibeah, Saul's farmer- 
home, was kept as his seat of government, a place "der weder 
Vergangenheit noch Zukunft hatte . . . der beste Beweis 
dass Saul das Organ zum Konig fehlte." 41 Even in military 
affairs his organization was very loose. There was nothing 
which could fairly be called a standing army, although indi- 
vidual military geniuses attended him (1 Sam. 14: 52). Local 
and tribal distinctions remained very marked. Because of this 
the king had to rely chiefly upon his own family and tribe 
for support. He appointed his cousin Abner, e. g., to the chief 
position, next his own, in the army, and selected all his officials 
from Benjamin, his own tribe (1 Sam. 14:50; 22:7). The 
free outlaw life of David in Judaea, and the ready election of 
David by the Judseans after the death of Saul show how 
limited was Saul's control of the south of the country. Indeed, 
the influence of the king over his immediate attendants seems 
to have depended upon his ability to supply them with the 
rewards of booty and position (1 Sam. 22:7-8). The power 



41 Kittel, Geschichte der Hebraer, II, S. 134. 

22 



of the elders remained intact, and the wholesome respect with 
which they were regarded by Saul is reflected in the request 
he made of Samuel to honor him in their presence (1 Sam. 
15:30). For the priesthood, at least under provocation, he 
did not show the same regard, slaughtering in one instance 
the priests of Nob because of their dealings with David 
(I Sam. 22:1 Iff). But undoubtedly acts of this kind only 
weakened his rule by alienating from his support not only the 
priestly class, but the rank and file of the people, to whom it 
was a sin thus "to fall upon the priests of Jehovah" (vs. 17). 
Moreover, the breach between Samuel and Saul was due to 
religious causes, whatever their precise nature may have been, 
and Saul's perception of the weakening effect upon his own 
position of the loss of Samuel's favor is clearly preserved in 
the tradition (1 Sam. 15 : 35), and without doubt was account- 
able in part for the melancholia of his later days. 

The evidence thus indicates that not only was the sphere 
of Saul's kingship very limited, but within that sphere his 
authority rested upon precarious ground. He owed his eleva- 
tion to a realization by the tribes that they needed a permanent 
military chief. No organic union was formed, only a federa- 
tion for the one purpose of fighting common enemies. His 
rule, however, was both continuous and of an inter-tribal 
character, and so marked an advance over the achievement 
of any sophet, and in turn paved the way for the greater work 
of unification accomplished by his successors. 



As this brings us to a consideration of the fully estab- 
lished monarchy, a note may be added on the terms by which 
the Hebrew kings are designated. The ordinary term is 
melek. The corresponding Arabic root means to possess or 
own exclusively, and the Assyrian malaku signifies to counsel 
or to advise. These analogies, with the facts to which atten- 
tion has already been called, viz., the growth of patesis into 
kings in Assyria, the rise of kings after mukarribs in South 
Arabia, and the synonymous use of melek and sophet in the 
Old Testament, suggest that the underlying idea in the term 
is the possession of such political power as to make judicial 
decisions of binding authority. 

23 



The term naghidh is used of six of the Hebrew kings, 
viz., Saul (1 Sam. 9: 16), David (1 Sam. 13: 14+), Solomon 
(1 K. 1 : 35+), Jeroboam I (1 K. 14: 7), Baasha (1 K. 16: 2) 
and Hezekiah (II K. 20:5), and almost invariably in pro- 
phetic passages in which their appointment over Israel or 
over his people, or over my people Israel is attributed to 
Yahweh. The term has the general sense of leader or com- 
mander* 2 and is used of rulers in various capacities, political, 
military and religious. 43 Its use as a substitute term for 
melek seems to be only another indication of prophetic dis- 
approval of the whole idea of human kingship. 

The term nasi', which, with one doubtful exception, 44 
is used exclusively by Ezekiel so far as it refers to occupants 
of the Hebrew throne, and the term masiach, which designates 
one as a representative of the deity, will be referred to more 
fully in the chapter on the Ideal Kingship. 



42 See Isaiah 55 : 4, where naghidh is parallel to m e sawweh. 

43 Ccmp. Jer. 20: 1; Ezek. 28: 2; 1 Chron. 12: 27; 26: 24; 2 
Chron. 32: 21. 

44 1 Kings 11: 34. The Heb. back of the Gr. text did not have 
the word. 

24 



CHAPTER III. 
The Monarchy of David and Solomon. 

After the death of Saul, Abner secured the recognition of 
Ish-baal, Saul's son, as king "over all Israel" (2 Sam. 2:9). 
It was found impossible, however, to check the' growing 
power of David, who was accepted as king in Judah, and who 
was popular even in the north. Hence, when Abner finally 
deserted Ish-baal, and the latter himself was killed, the way 
was open for "all the elders of Israel" to go to Hebron and 
anoint David king over the entire land (2 Sam. 5:3). 

David's purpose to act as a national king, and, moreover, 
his genius for such a role, appear in the first act recorded of 
his reign, viz., the selection of Jerusalem as capital. Hitherto 
no tribe had been able to dispossess the Jebusites of this city ; 
hence it was neutral ground and fitted to forestall prejudice. 
Then, too, it occupied a splendid position for defense, thereby 
inspiring confidence and pride. Finally, it was situated in the 
border land between Benjamin and Judah, and so kept David 
in close touch with his naturally most loyal constituents, the 
Judaeans. 

The military organization developed by David was as 
much superior to Saul's as his conquests were wider and more 
brilliant. Saul had a "captain of the host" and a loose body- 
guard (I Sam. 22:6, 17), but no standing army. David, on 
the contrary, had a commander-in-chief of the army, a well- 
organized bodyguard (2 Sam. 20:23; 23:23), groups of 
chieftains called The Three and The Thirty (2 Sam. 23 : 13, 
19, 23, 24), and, most important of all, a permanent fighting 
force with settled garrisons in conquered countries (2 Sam. 
8:6, 14). With this organization he was able to win con- 
tinued military successes, and at the end of his reign bequeath 
to his successor a kingdom of substantial peace. 

The development of the monarchy is seen, furthermore, in 
the multiplication and growing importance of state officials. 

25 



Comparing 2 Sam. 20:23-26 with 1 K. 4:1-6, we see that 
the chief officers, outside of the military, were the maakir, 
or historiographer; the sopher, or writer of state documents 
and the king's correspondence ; the 'aser c al-hammas, or over- 
seer of the task-workers; and the royal priests. In addition 
to these, Solomon had an officer over the house (IK. 4:6), 
who is probably to be identified with the household soken, or 
treasurer; a chief in charge of the administrative officers of 
the provinces (1 K. 4:5, 7); cupbearers and the numerous 
other servants who invariably accompany an oriental court 
(1 K. 10:5). As theoretically all the state officials were 
entirely dependent upon the king, and the mere instruments 
of his will, a certain amount of centralism was bound to result 
from this system. It both developed a growing seclusion of 
the king from the people at large, 45 and at the same time 
enabled him to keep in close touch with the country's affairs, 
as was indicated by the current saying, "there is no matter 
hid from the king" (2 Sam. 18: 13). 

For purposes of internal administration David took a 
census of the people of the land (2 Sam, 24:4ff), and 
Solomon divided it into thirteen districts, 46 with a royal repre- 
sentative in each. In each case the object was the same, viz., 
provision for tax-levies, war-service and work upon public 
enterprises. Solomon's extensive building operations and the 
gratification of his tastes generally bear witness to the effi- 
ciency of the methods used. 

As further indications of the strength and enterprise of 
the monarchy, there may be cited its commercial activity and 
the flourishing condition of its foreign relations. As to the 
former, there are references to a system of royal weights 
(2 Sam. 14:26) and to extensive trade operations, which 
were a source of royal revenue (1 K. 9:26; 10: 11, 15, 22). 
The stability of foreign relations is seen in the final cessation 
of the Philistine menace, in treaties such as those with Tyre 
and Egypt, in the story of the visit of the Queen of Sheba and 
in the prevailing peaceful conditions of Solomon's reign. 



46 Note the phrase, "beholders of the face of the king/' 2 K. 
25: 19. 

40 The twelve enumerated in 1 K. 4: 7 ff, and Jjudah. 

26 



Both David and Solomon exercised priestly functions. 
The former, on the occasion of the bringing of the ark to 
Jerusalem, offered sacrifices and blessed the people (2 Sam. 
6: 17, 18) ; the latter, at the dedication of the temple, blessed 
the people and prayed (1 K. 8:14, 23, 55), and on various 
occasions offered sacrifices (1 K. 3:4, 15; 9:25). The sons 
of David are explicitly called priests (2 Sam. 8: 18). More- 
over, under the sponsorship of Solomon, the cults of the 
surrounding nations were introduced into Jerusalem and given 
official protection (1 K. 11 : 1-8), this being an outcome of the 
alliances he made with the nations concerned. 

Large judicial powers were wielded by both David and 
Solomon. Absalom is represented as having "stolen the 
hearts" of the nation through his influence over those who 
"came to the king for judgment," and a good interpretation of 
the kingship is found in his plea, "Oh, that I were made judge 
in the land that any man who hath any suit or cause might 
come unto me, and I would do him justice !" (2 Sam. 15 : 1-6). 
As for Solomon, his reputation came to rest largely upon his 
renown as a judge (IK. 3:28). Indeed, it was because of 
the well-recognized judicial authority of the king, coupled 
with the common practice of appeal to him, that Solomon 
was able to extend the royal estates as he did ; for this was 
undoubtedly done through travesties on justice, by which land 
was arbitrarily appropriated and its owners reduced to serf- 
dom. In the records preserved to us such proceedings are 
freely acknowledged so far as the non-Israelitish inhabitants 
of the land are concerned (IK. 9:20-21), and the sequel to 
Solomon's reign leaves little doubt that the same policy was 
pursued toward the Israelites themselves. Other seemingly 
arbitrary acts of the king, for most of which, however, there 
was much more justification, were based upon his judicial 
authority. Among these may be mentioned David's execution 
of Rechab and Baanah (2 Sam. 4: 12), his disposition of the 
property of Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 16:4; 19, :29), Solomon's 
dispatching of Joab, Adonijah and Shimei, and his deposition 
of Abiathar (1 K. 2:13-46). 

The government of David and Solomon, therefore, 
achieved no small success in overcoming the disintegrating 
forces existent in Israel, and in centralizing in the king large 

27 



powers which under Solomon became, in some ways, despotic. 
But it is to be remembered that this period in Israel's history 
lasted for only two generations, and was followed by a violent 
reaction, and, furthermore, that even during this period there 
were checks upon the king which operated with considerable 
force. It is to these that we now turn. 

In the first place, we note the continuance of local self- 
government. The eldership remained unimpaired. 47 There 
was nothing in Solomon's division of the country into thirteen 
districts to suggest any change in the management of ordinary 
local affairs. As to the relations existing between the local 
officials and the royal representatives, nothing very definite 
can be said, but it is safe to assume that outside of special 
tasks assigned them, the work of the king's officers was pri- 
marily to collect revenue, and secondarily to act as appellate 
judges in cases where the local authorities could not or did not 
afford relief. This was far from destroying local initiative 
or self-government. 

In the rise of David to power we see plainly the influence 
of the local units at that period. Abner, strong as he was, 
could not, merely by his defection, hand over the northern 
tribes to David, but it was necessary to enter into communica- 
tion with the elders of Israel as to their desires in the matter 
(2 Sam. 3: 17ff), and as David was made king over Judah by 
the "men of Judah" (2 Sam. 2:4), so "all the elders of 
Israel" made him king over the whole land (2 Sam. 5: 1-3). 
In the accession of Solomon we see the workings of an estab- 
lished monarchy with its implication of the hereditary idea, 
but with no suppression of the popular voice. David's choice 
could not have been made effective without popular approval 
(1 K. 1 :39, 40) any more than the schemes of Adonijah could 
have succeeded without the same sanction. Wines makes the 
interesting remark "that the right of setting aside the first 
born by the arbitrary will of the king is not usual in hereditary 
monarchies, and therefore it is probable that it was conferred 
upon David by the terms of the capitulation" (of the tribes 
at Hebron). 48 But this supposition is not at all necessary. The 



47 See e. g., 2 Sam. 17: 4, 15; 1 Kings 8: 1-3. 

48 Wines, Laws of the Ancient Hebrews, p. 562. 

28 



success of David's rule was sufficient guarantee that the mon- 
archy would remain in the possession of his family, while the 
strength of his personal influence, coupled, doubtless, with the 
popularity of Solomon, was sufficient to secure the latter's en- 
dorsement by the people against the claims of all others. 

The independent power of the people, as expressed in 
their local associations, appears indirectly in the attitude of 
both David and Solomon toward the nation at large. This atti- 
tude was one of positive distrust. David refused to commit 
the defence of his throne and his personal safety to his own 
countrymen, but entrusted it to foreigners — the Pelethites, 
Cherethites and Gittites. These constituted his bodyguard, 
and to them he turned in the hours of greatest danger (2 Sam. 
15: 18; 20: 7). Moreover, when he selected his officials from 
among the Hebrews, he preferred his own kinsmen to all 
others (2 Sam. 19: 11-13). In the case of Solomon, it was 
this same distrustful spirit which led him to ignore the natural 
divisions of the country for administrative purposes. There 
is every reason to believe that the wholesome respect for ex- 
isting local authority, which David showed at the very begin- 
ning of his reign in sending presents to the elders of the cities 
of Judah, remained a characteristic of the kingship throughout 
this period of the monarchy (1 Sam. 30: 26-31). 

Still again, the throne's limitations were revealed by the 
instigation of rebellions against it. In David's time the chief 
of these were Absalom's, in which the original conspirators 
were Judsean tribesmen of the king (2 Sam. 15:9-12), and 
Sheba's, in which the line of cleavage was tribal (2 Sam. 20). 
Hence, we note the unchecked insubordination of the Hebrews 
both as individuals and in their group connections. During 
the reign of Solomon, there was no revolution so far as the 
records go, but the factors which make for revolution were 
present; they were kept in check, indeed, by the glories of a 
reign which fascinated the popular mind in spite of the hard- 
ships imposed, but with the hand of Israel's grand monarch 
removed, the old intolerance of restraint again appeared in 
revolutionary form. 

Furthermore, it cannot be supposed that the state officials 
themselves did not possess and assert rights which tended to 
check the free exercise of the royal will. Solomon, at the be- 

29 



ginning of his reign, made use of his personal popularity and 
of the pretext afforded by Adonijah's attempted usurpation, 
to clean the slate of political enemies, and the glitter of his 
court seems to have dazed his servants into a considerable 
degree of submissiveness as long as he lived ; but the action of 
Jeroboam, who, while still a state official, had the courage "to 
raise his hand against the king" (1 K. 11 : 26), and the advice 
of Solomon's ministers that Rehoboam should be more lenient 
than his father (1 K. 12:6, 7), show that Solomon could not 
keep all of his servants in an attitude of fawning approval. 
David found it impossible to curb the arbitrary conduct of his 
general, Joab, who, against the king's wish and with impunity, 
murdered both Abner and Amasa, and who felt free to criticise 
his lord (2 Sam. 3:24, 25). The plaint of David that "these 
men, the sons of Zeruiah, are too hard for me" (2 Sam. 3 : 39), 
may well express the attitude of both David and Solomon 
toward other ministers whose names have not come down to us. 
Finally, religious forces were active in combating royal 
arbitrariness during this period. It was not yet the time of the 
great prophets, but in the activities of men like Gad, Nathan 
and Ahijah, we see the beginnings of that fierce condemnation 
of social wrong, and of the courage to put the blame where it 
belongs, so characteristic of the later messengers of Yahweh. 
Gad protested against an enumeration of the people for reve- 
nue purposes (2 Sam. 24) ; Nathan condemned David for the 
violation of another's home and for murder (2 Sam. 12) ; 
Ahijah protested against the oppression of Solomon (IK. 
ll:26ff), and in no one of these cases is there any evidence 
that the prophet was harmed for his conduct. On the con- 
trary, the royal attitude was, and continued to be, one of re- 
spect for the prophetic office. Moreover, Solomon's introduc- 
tion of foreign religious cults into the land, accompanied as 
this was, not only by the inflow of foreign wealth and 
ideas, but by a growing moral and religious laxity, only 
tended to undermine his monarchy. For, on the one hand, the 
strongest national bond which existed — the religion of Yahweh 
— was thereby weakened, and on the other, the ire of the Yah- 
wistic party, which stood for the old civilization as against the 
new, was so aroused that it did what it could to hasten the 
disruption of the monarchy and to discourage attempts at re- 

30 



union after the break had come (1 K. 12 : 22-24) . The religion 
of Yahweh encouraged union among its true adherents, but 
it preferred disunion to surrender. 

The supreme proof, however, of the restricted nature of 
David's and Solomon's power is found in the Jeroboam revolt, 
and in the permanent national schism which was created 
thereby. 



3i 



CHAPTER IV. 
The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. 

The split of the Hebrew monarchy into two parts was 
occasioned by the oppression of Solomon, but its fundamental 
causes lay much deeper. From the very beginning of the 
Hebrew occupation of Canaan, Judah had maintained its 
identity as against the tribes to the north. It had fought its 
way into southern Palestine with the help only of Simeon, 
and throughout the period of the Judges pursued its own 
course. Deborah failed even to mention it as a source from 
which aid might be expected for the alliance formed by her- 
self and Barak. Nominally Judah was a part of Saul's king- 
dom, but we have seen how uncertain its support was. Con- 
versely, when the kingdom under David was established on a 
Judsean base, the loyalty of the north became subject to sus- 
picion — a suspicion confirmed by the jealousies and rebellions 
of David's reign, and by Solomon's method of districting the 
land. The fact that the terms Judah and Israel, as designa- 
tions for the south and north, respectively, are used conjointly 
to express the idea of all Israel, even in early narratives, 49 
shows how deep-seated this distinction was. The basis of the 
Jeroboam revolt was as old as the settlement in Palestine ; nay, 
older. The real preparation for it is to be found in those indi- 
vidualistic traits which were prominent in Hebrew character 
from the beginning, and which, although checked, could not 
be subdued by an oppression such as Solomon's. 

The circumstances attending the accession of Rehoboam 
and Jeroboam's revolt reveal several facts germane to our 
thesis. In the first place, we note that Rehoboam went to 
Shechem to be made king by "all Israel" (1 K. 12:1). This 
procedure in itself showed a lack of cordial support on the 
part of the northern tribes. David could have selected no 
better capital than Jerusalem, but evidently neither its natural 



40 See e. g. t i Sam. n : 8; 17: 52; 2 Sam. 11: 11. 

32 



fitness nor the prestige which it had acquired by two long and 
brilliant reigns were able to remove tribal prejudice. With- 
out doubt, Rehoboam was acclaimed king in Jerusalem, but his 
journey to the north is explained only on the ground that, what- 
ever the local enthusiasm of this acclamation may have been, 
it lacked all signs of possessing a national character. Further- 
more, in the deliberations between king and people in Shechem, 
it is clear that the people, while recognizing the hereditary 
claims of Rehoboam, retained the right to accept or reject him, 
according as he promised or refused to rule in harmony with 
their desires. Rehoboam theoretically recognized this right 
when he took the people's proposals into consideration for 
three days, and no finer definition of the Hebrew idea of king- 
ship can be found than that which the tradition assigns to 
Rehoboam's elderly advisors, who said: "If thou wilt be a 
servant unto this people this day and wilt serve them, and 
answer them and speak good words to them, then they will 
be thy servants for ever" (1 K. 12:7). The protest of the 
tribes was not against the kingdom per se, but against royal 
arbitrariness, and when the protest was not heeded, they re- 
belled, and Jeroboam was raised by popular acclaim to the 
throne (vs. 20). The ease with which the revolution was ac- 
complished shows how artificial the centralism of David and 
Solomon was. By such simple means as the rehabilitation of 
ancient shrines to counteract the influence of the Jerusalem 
temple, the breach between the north and the south was made 
permanent (vs. 26-29). 

It is no part of our purpose to trace the varying fortunes 
of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. It is sufficient to point 
out, by way of contrast between the two, the greater stability 
of the kingdom of Judah. This was due to many causes, 
among which may be mentioned a greater racial and geograph- 
ical solidarity, less exposure to attack because of better natural 
protection and more isolated position, and, lastly, the prestige 
of a permanent royal line with direct descent from David and 
Solomon. But of necessity the two kingdoms influenced each 
other, and, in general, their resemblances exceeded their dif- 
ferences. There were corresponding social and religious devel- 
opments in each, and, so far as the king was concerned, similar 
restrictions and powers. 

33 



We note, first, certain demoralizing tendencies of the period 
with their results upon the position of the king. The most 
important of these was the break-up of the social democracy 
of the nation. . Class distinctions arose — the inevitable outcome 
of the protracted wars of the two kingdoms, and intensified by 
their commercial activity. The system of state officials only 
aggravated the situation by offering an opportunity for selfish 
aggrandizement under royal protection, with resulting cruelty 
and injustice. Hence, the poor and the rich, the officials and 
those without court connections, became hostile toward each 
other. This development was not prominent for some time 
subsequent to the division of the monarchy. In Judah espe- 
cially, there seems to have been a reaction against Solomon's 
orientalism and a resumption of simple ways, which lasted for 
upwards of a century. During the second quarter of the 
8th century, however, in the contemporary reigns of Uzziah 
and Jeroboam II, comparative peace prevailed, trade flourished, 
wealth rolled into Samaria and Jerusalem, and marked social 
classes appeared. The princes or officials henceforth assumed 
a most important role in both governments, and in the last 
days of the Judsean state, practically turned the monarchy 
into an oligarchy. The whole movement, of course, weakened 
the nation's democratic spirit, but so far as the king was con- 
cerned, it gave rise to the new check of a rich and well-en- 
trenched aristocracy — a check well illustrated in the relation 
of Zedekiah to his princes, to whom he said, "the king is not 
he that can do anything against you" (Jer. 38: 5). 

Foreign interference, with its accompanying wars and 
rumors of wars, was another devitalizing force. The Syrians, 
Assyrians, Egyptians and Babylonians, by appropriating terri- 
tory, imposing tribute or simply depleting the population, grad- 
ually wore out the Israelites and Judseans. These things not 
only impoverished them, but led to many distractions and much 
party wrangling, and in the end to the humiliation of having 
their kings appointed for them by foreign rulers. But here 
again the situation gave rise to a new form of check upon the 
royal power. Parties arose which were differentiated from 
each other according to their proposals of self-defense, alli- 
ance or submission. The king was not only unable to control 
these parties, but his very safety depended upon his attach- 

34 



ment to the one which at the time was strongest. Pekahiah in 
Israel lost his life because the pro-Assyrian party, to which 
he and his father belonged, fell into disfavor (2 K. 15: 19-26, 
29), and probably the murder of Amon in Judah was due to 
the increasing strength of the prophetic party, which, in Josiah's 
reign, stood for self-reliance and opposed all foreign connec- 
tions. During the last days of both kingdoms, the king was 
little more than a puppet alternately in the hands of foreign 
rulers and local parties. 

A third disintegrating factor was the continuance of com- 
promise in religion. During the periods of Phoenician, Syrian 
and Assyrian influence, religious innovations from these sources 
took their place beside Yahweh worship, becoming entrenched 
even in the sacred precincts of the Jerusalem temple (Ezek. 8). 
Such compromises could not but impair the national unity, for 
they weakened the strongest bond which held the Hebrews to- 
gether. The sin of Jeroboam was his degrading of the cult in 
Israel to a plane lower than that which the best Yahweh wor- 
ship had reached, for in setting up the worship of Yahweh 
under the image of a bull, there was a clear adaptation to 
Canaanitish nature-worship, from which the Jerusalem temple 
at the time was free, and in the selection of priests "from 
among all the people" (1 K. 12: 31 ; 13 : 33), the king showed 
clearly enough that his purpose in religious supervision was of 
a political nature. This policy, though temporarily successful, 
was bound to result disastrously to both the nation and the 
throne ; to the nation, because of the demoralization which Sy- 
rian nature-rites inevitably produced ; and to the throne, because 
of the reaction against this policy on the part of the spiritually 
minded, under the leadership of the prophets of Yahweh. The 
sin of Jeroboam was an important contributing cause in mak- 
ing the northern kingdom for a long time the scene of much 
greater prophetic activity than the southern. But in Judah, 
too, the prophets, when they did appear, were called forth 
largely in opposition to religious compromise, so that this 
tendency also, like the others we have mentioned, may be said 
to have called into being new checks upon royalty, while 
vitiating to some extent the old. 

These special tendencies, however, modifying though 
their influence was, did not destroy the old forces and con- 

35 



ditions which were restrictive of centralized power. Local and 
tribal separateness was never overcome. The ease with which 
the Syrians, and later the Assyrians (2 K. 15:29), overran 
the territory north of Esdraelon shows what a breach there was 
between Galilee and its southern neighbors. The territory 
east of the Jordan received the same scant protection against 
invaders, and its practical independence is illustrated in the 
statement, which is given as a special note, that Pekah, in his 
rebellion against Pekahiah, had the assistance of "fifty men 
of the Gileadites" (2 K. 15 : 25). Isaiah portrayed the antag- 
onism even of tribes closely related, in the striking passage — 
"they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm ; Manasseh, 
Ephraim; and Ephraim, Manasseh; and they together shall be 
against Judah" (Isa. 9: 20, 21). The isolation of the cities of 
the land was just as great in the Assyrian campaigns as at the 
Hebrew conquest (2 K. 15:29; 18: 13), and in the organiza- 
tion of the military by city-units it is possible to detect a fur- 
thering cause of this isolation (Amos. 5:3). 

This separateness of existence was accompanied by inde- 
pendence of local administration. The elders remained in high 
esteem and of great importance. According to Isaiah, they 
were among the most valuable assets of Judah and Jerusalem 
(Isa. 3: 1, 2). The kings took counsel of them in matters of 
foreign (1 K. 20:7,8) and domestic (2 K. 23:1) policy. 
Their judicial rights remained intact. Ahab, for example, 
found it impossible to secure the property of Naboth without 
judicial authorization by the people's representatives, viz., the 
s e qenim and the horim (1 K. 2 ! 1) ; and in the trial of Jeremiah 
it is notable that his accusers did not go to Jehoiakim for judg- 
ment, but to the c am, whom Sulzberger, with great plausibility 
in this passage, argues to be elders or representatives of the 
people 50 (Jer. 26:8fT). In the organization of the courts at- 
tributed to Jehoshaphat, there is no indication that he inter- 
fered with the customary rights of local officials. He was con- 
cerned mainly with establishing a system of appeal, and so far 
as his lay appointments are specified, they were from "the 
heads of the fathers' houses" (2 Chron. 19: 5ff). Stade assert? 
that it was in judicial matters that the old clan organization 



50 Sulzberger, The Am-ha-Aretz, ;>p. 42 50. 

36 



gave the longest and most powerful opposition to the king. 51 
This is doubtless true, and, of course, it would be just at this 
point where such opposition would involve the greatest check 
upon the royal power. 

The independent strength of the people as a whole is seen, 
furthermore, in the control which they kept over the succes- 
sion of their kings. In Judah the royal line was fixed ; never- 
theless each succeeding king was raised to the throne by the 
people, as is expressly stated in the case of Joash (2 K. 11 : 12, 
13); Uzziah (2 K. 14:21); Josiah (2 K. 21:23,24) and 
Jehoahaz (2 K. 23: 30). The kingdom of Israel started in a 
popular election, and the elective principle never became sub- 
ject to a fixed hereditary line. Indeed, so democratic were the 
tribes of the north that one wonders if Solomon's succession 
to David without their formal consent, or if Rehoboam's suc- 
cession to Solomon, prior to any consultation with them, did 
not have something to do with the Jereboam revolt. But not 
only did the people control the succession of their kings ; on 
occasion they deposed them. In Judah, under the leadership 
of Jehoiada, they deposed Athaliah (2 K. 11 : 13-16). In Israel 
the overthrow of the successive dynasties was accomplished by 
military chieftains, usually captains of the host, who ranked 
next to the king (2 K. 4: 13), and who were thus in a position 
to curry personal favor from the fighting strength of the na- 
tion (1 K. 16:9, 16; 2 K. 9:5; 15:25). It is true that the 
success of their intrigues was due as much to their individual 
genius as to any spontaneous popular action, but this only 
makes clearer the fact that the throne rested upon very tran- 
sient values and was practically without guarantees of support. 
In Judah there was a counter-check in the people's inbred loy- 
alty to the established Davidic line, but in Israel there was little, 
if any, restraint to keep them from withdrawing their alle- 
giance at will. 

The kings continued to exercise priestly and religious 
functions. They were the chief supervisors of religion, setting 
up altars, high places, asherim and pillars, (1 K. 
16: 32; 2 K. 21 : 3ff), or destroying the same (2 K. 3 : 2'; 18: 
4). They sacrificed and burnt incense (IK. 12:27-33; 2 



51 Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, I, S. 411. 

37 



Chron. 25: 14). They collected money for religious purposes 
(2 K. 12:4ff; 22:4), and exercised freedom in the use of 
temple treasures (2 K. 16: 8; 18: 15). Ahaz not only acted as 
a priest himself, but issued commands for the whole arrange- 
ment of the temple cult (2 K. 16 : lOfT) . The priests, as a class, 
however, although at times manifesting subservience to the 
king (e. g. 2 K. 16: llff), at other times exhibited splendid 
aggressiveness. It was Jehoiada, the priest, who inspired and 
directed the conspiracy which removed Athaliah and put Joash 
on the throne (2 K. 11), and possibly the prestige acquired 
for the priesthood by this memorable act had something to do 
with the struggle between it and the throne, vouched for by 
the Book of Chronicles. There it is recorded that Zachariah, 
the son of Jehoiada, outspokenly opposed Joash and in so doing 
lost his life (2 Chron. 24:15-22), while later an encounter 
between Uzziah and the priesthood led to consequences which 
were serious for the king (2 Chron. 26: 17-20). Kittel is cer- 
tainly right in saying that there is no good reason summarily to 
reject this tradition. 52 It is not inconsistent with the repre- 
sentation of Kings and it harmonizes well with the independent 
spirit of the Hebrew people. 

The restrictions which were imposed upon the kings of 
this period by customary and written law have already been 
referred to in part. Such acts as the purchase of the hill of 
Samaria by Omri (1 K. 16: 24) show that the right of private 
property was respected. Indeed, this right was so well en- 
trenched that when Ahab tried to override it in his dealings 
with Naboth, he was at his wits' end and accomplished his 
purpose only by a resort to underhanded methods, which, how- 
ever, were carried out in full conformity with the law (IK. 
2:1). It is certain, moreover, that this manifest perversion of 
justice was one of the causes which led to the overthrow of his 
dynasty by Jehu (2 K. 9 : 25, 26). The safety of private prop- 
erty to the very end of the Judaean kingdom is indicated by 
Jeremiah's purchase of real estate from his cousin (Jer. 32: 
6-15). Such facts as these suggest that the picture of the 
kingdom drawn in 1 Sam 8 : lOfT has to do only with special 
periods and individual instances and not with the usual con- 



52 Kittel, Geschichte der Hebraer, II, S. 281. 

38 



dition of affairs. The Deuteronomic law of the king, to which 
Josiah at least definitely subscribed (2 K. 23:3), stated that 
the king was as much subject to law as the people, and, indeed, 
that it was his special duty to study the law and obey it "that 
his heart be not lifted up above his brethren" (Deut. 17 : 18-20). 
The covenant which Josiah and all the people made before 
Yahweh implied a common recognition of the divine sanction 
of law and involved an obligation on the part of the king to 
the people, and of the people to the king, to obey it (2 K. 23: 
1-3). The same was true of the covenant which Jehoiada 
made "between Jehovah and the king and the people that they 
should be Jehovah's people; between the king also and the 
people" (2 K. 11 : 17). The position of the priesthood in both 
of these transactions is noteworthy. In the case of Jehoiada, it 
was a priest who administered the covenant, while in the case 
of Josiah, it was a priest from whom was secured the law to 
which the king subscribed. 

We come finally to a consideration of the prophets in their 
relation to the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. For the first 
two centuries after the disruption, their activities were much 
greater in the north than in the south — a fact which is to be 
attributed partly to the existence of schools of the prophets in 
the north, and partly to the reaction against the Tyrian proph- 
ets of Baal introduced by Ahab. But with the rise of the 
great writing prophets in the 8th century, Judah also came 
under their spell and remained so to the downfall of the state. 
There was no class of men which the kings of Judah and Israel 
more respected or feared. Their spirit of freedom in denounc- 
ing kings as well as others was irrepressible. Amos prophesied 
against the house of Jeroboam and the royal sanctuaries of 
Israel with impunity, for seemingly the only thing which Ama- 
ziah, the priest of Bethel, could do was to advise him to return 
to Judah (Amos. 7:8fT). Jeremiah uttered his prophecies of 
destruction within the temple area adjoining the royal palace, 
but when he was imprisoned, it was for a supposedly treacher- 
ous act, and not for his words (Jer. 37: 11-15). The influen- 
tial standing of the prophets appears in the fact that the kings 
repeatedly went to them for advice. Ahab inquired of them 
whether he should go up against the Syrians (1 K. 22:6) ; 
Hezekiah sent to Isaiah at the time of Sennacherib's invasion 

39 



(2 K. 19: 2) ; and although Jeremiah censured "the shepherds" 
because they did not "enquire of Yahweh" (Jer. 10: 21), Zede- 
kiah brought him secretly from prison to ascertain 
what the divine will was (Jer. 37:16-17). In the field of 
politics the prophets worked actively, and on questions of 
national policy their notions were very set. The division of 
the kingdom was favored and promoted by Ahijah (1 K. 11 : 
29ff), and by Shemaiah (1 K. 12: 22-24). Elijah and Elisha 
undoubtedly had much to do with the revolution of Jehu (1 
K. 19: 16; 2 K. 9: 1-6). Isaiah antagonized with great zeal 
the idea of any alliance with Egypt, and the strength of his 
influence at court is shown by the fact that the preparations for 
such an alliance were concealed from him (Isa. 30: 1-5; 31: 
1-3). Jeremiah preached his politics incessantly, and in the 
royal presence with as much freedom as elsewhere, as when 
he said to Zedekiah, "Bring your necks under the yoke of the 
king of Babylon, * * * and live" (Jer. 27: 12). Of course 
the degree of success achieved by the prophets varied accord- 
ing to such factors as the strength of their own personalities, 
the measure of popular support which they received, and the 
vindication in one way or another of their prophecies. Heze- 
kiah's reform, for example, was the result of the prophetic 
leadership of men like Isaiah and Micah (Jer. 26: 18, 19), in 
conjunction with the vindication of Yahweh's power as seen in 
the deliverance of Jerusalem from Sennacherib, and the con- 
sequent popular support given to prophetic measures. Con- 
flicts of opinion between the prophets themselves, such as that 
between Jeremiah and Hananiah (Jer. 28), weakened their in- 
dividual and combined strength. It was of this that Jeremiah 
complained when he said "the prophets prophesy falsely, and 
the priests bear rule by their means ; and my people love to 
have it so" (Jer. 5 : 31). Yet this plaint itself bears witness to 
the dignity and power of the prophetic office at its best. The 
kings of Israel and Judah could neither ignore nor suppress it. 
Indeed, Ewald calls the most characteristic feature of the 
northern kingdom "der Gegensaz der koniglichen und der pro- 
phetischen Gewalt," 53 and of Judah the same may be said from 
the days of Isaiah on, if with the king is included the aris- 



i3 Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, III, S. 

40 



tocracy. The prophets owed their authority to no official po- 
sition, but simply to the common right of free speech in the 
name of God. No better proof could be had of the democracy 
of the Hebrew people or of the continuance of their early in- 
dividualistic spirit throughout the period of their single and 
separate kingdoms. 



CHAPTER V. 
The Ideal Kingship. 

Their experience with the rule of kings made it natural 
for the Hebrews to express their deepest longings, particularly 
when a crisis was on, in monarchical terms. Thus there arose 
ideals of kingship, and no sketch of the Hebrew monarchy 
would be complete were these not considered. Important for 
our purpose, a study of them will reveal the ideal limitations 
put by the people upon their kings, and thus throw light upon 
the actual limitations as we have observed them to exist, and 
bring into clearer relief the whole political genius of the na- 
tion. It will not be necessary for us to trace the development 
of these ideals during the monarchy, nor the modifications to 
which they were subjected in post-monarchical times. The im- 
portant fact is that however they differed in detail, there ran 
through them, from first to last, certain great governmental 
principles in which we see confirmed our thesis of a limited 
monarchy in Israel. 

These principles may be summed up in two propositions : 
First, the king is the true representative of the nation's God; 
and, second, the king is the true representative of the nation 
he rules. Hence, the checks upon his power are fundamentally 
two, viz., the divine will, and the social conscience. In the 
course of the chapter we shall first consider the king in his 
relation to God, then in his relation to the people, and finally 
give some concrete idealizations of him in which may be seen 
the expression of both these relationships. 

The real king of Israel was Yahweh — a thought abun- 
dantly expressed in the Psalms and the Prophets. When the 
human kingship arose, Yahweh's rule did not cease, but was 
only modified by making the human king his representative. 
Their relationship to each other is revealed by the titles and 
descriptive epithets which were applied to the human king. 
Important among these was masiach, anointed one. The oil, 
by the use of which in anointing, kings were consecrated to 

42 



their office, symbolized the Spirit of Yahweh himself. The 
anointing of Saul, e. g., was attended by the coming of the 
Spirit of Yahweh upon him (1 Sam. 10: 1, 6, 10), and when 
David was anointed, it is stated that the Spirit of Yahweh 
"came mightily" upon him "from that day forward" (1 Sam. 
16: 13). Hence, a masiach, possessing Yahweh's spirit, was 
ipso facto his representative, even to the extent of being inviol- 
able ( 1 Sam. 24 : 7 ; 26 : 9) . All the kings of the Hebrews were 
undoubtedly inducted into office with the ceremony of anoint- 
ing (e. g. 1 K. 1 : 39; 2 K. 11 : 12), but it is a striking fact that 
the title masiach is not given to any of them except, as it were, 
idealistically. Outside of the Saul and David narratives, it is 
used only in late passages, probably all post-monarchical. At 
any rate, it is never applied to a Hebrew king in a contempo- 
rary historical or prophetic passage. It is employed only by 
fond memory or hopeful anticipation. This throws light upon 
the Hebrews' estimate of their monarchy. They probably 
never denied, in their thinking of any individual king, the 
implicates of the title masiach, but their use of the title shows 
that it represented conditions which were more ideal than real. 
In the later hopes of the Jewish people it came to be the 
designation, par excellence, of their ideal king. 

Two other titles which designated the ideal king as Yah- 
weh's representative were ben, son, and c ebhed, servant. Ex- 
amples of the former are found in 2 Sam. 7 : 14 and Ps. 2:7; 
of the latter in 2 Sam. 3 : 18 and Jer. 33 : 21, 26. These words 
have two features in common; they refer, as titles of royalty, 
only to David or the Davidic dynasty, and they are used of the 
people as a whole as well as of the king. Israel is called 
Yahweh's son, e. g., in Ex. 4:22, 23 and Hosea 11: 1, and 
Yahweh's servant in Isa. 41 : 8 and Jer. 46: 27, 28. Hence, as 
the nation itself was representative of Yahweh, so also the 
nation's kings. It is interesting to note that the titles c ebhed 
and masiach are used virtually as synonyms in Ps. 89: 51, 52. 

The perfect harmony between Yahweh and the ideal king 
is revealed furthermore in expressions where the two are 
closely associated or even identified. The following may serve 
as examples : "They shall serve Jehovah, their God, and David, 
their king" (Jer. 30:9) ; "In that day * * * the house of 
David shall be as God, as the angel of Jehovah before them" 

43 



(Zech. 12:8) ; "Then Solomon sat on the throne of Jehovah 
as king" (1 Chron. 29:23). In the development of the doc- 
trine of the Messianic King, he and Yahweh seem almost in- 
terchangeable. Now one and now the other acts as the direct 
leader and protector of their people. To quote Gressmann: 
"Die Funktionem beider sind fast noch identisch. Der Messias 
wird mehr als ein zum Gott erhobener Konig, Jahwe mehr als 
ein zum Konig erhobener Gott beschrieben." 54 

Hence, a clear limitation upon the power of the king in 
the ideal monarchy was the will of God, whose representative 
he so truly was. This limitation may be illustrated by two 
verses from the Psalms: "If thy (David's) children will keep 
my covenant and my testimony * * * their children also 
shall sit upon thy throne" Ps. 132:12. "If his (David's) 
children forsake my law, and walk not in mine ordinances 
* * * then I will visit their transgression with the rod" 
Ps. 89:30, 32. 

The ideal king, moreover, was a true representative of the 
people. This is suggested by the fact to which reference has 
already been made that the same terms, viz., ben and c ebhed, 
were used to describe the relation in which both king and 
people stoofl to their God. Furthermore, we have such expres- 
sions as "their ruler shall proceed from the midst of them" 
(Jer. 30:21), and "he (the Branch) shall grow up out of his 
place" (Zech. 6:12). But most important of all are those 
passages which refer to the ideal king as being of the seed of 
Abraham, or, more specifically, of the line of David. Among 
these may be mentioned the Genesis covenant passages (17: 6; 
35:11); those in which the coming king is directly called "my 
servant David" (Jer. 33 : 21 ; Ezek. 37 : 25), and those in which 
his descent from David is clearly stated (Micah 5:1; Jer. 23 : 
5). The idea of this organic connection between king and 
people arose early ; we find it expressed e. g. in the Deuteron- 
omic law of the king (17: 5) ; but nothing shows better how 
deep-seated it was than this close and long-continued associa- 
tion of the coming ruler with David, around whom clustered 
the most popular traditions of the Hebrew people. It may be 



54 Gressmann, Ursprung der Israelitiscb-Juedischen Eschatolog'e, 
S. 301. 

44 



added that in the sublimer reaches of prophecy the ideal king 
became in a way the representative of the nations at large. 
He was to transcend the Aaronic priesthood and become "a 
priest after the order of Melchizedek" (Ps. 110:4). He was 
also to be a "light to the Gentiles" (Isa. 42:6; 49:6), for 
although this expression was originally used of Israel as the 
servant of Yahweh, harmonistic exegesis applied it also to the 
Messianic King (Enoch 48:4; Luke 2:32). 

As the true representative of the people, the ideal king 
was subject to the demands of the social conscience. He was 
to express in his own person and try to perfect in the life of 
the nation its highest ideals. He was to be a king who would 
"reign in righteousness" (Isa. 32: 1), hating wickedness (Ps. 
45 : 8) and executing judgment and justice in the earth (Jer. 
23: 5). He would fight to deliver his people from oppression 
and then inaugurate a reign of peace (Micah 5:5; Jer. 23 : 
6). The idea of a suffering Messiah, and the application of 
such a passage as Isa. 53 to the Messianic King did not have 
any vogue until the Christian era, 55 but the ideal king's fullest 
sympathy with the sufferings of his people is assumed every- 
where. Probably the best single picture of the ideal king, so 
far as his relations with the people are concerned, is that pre- 
served in the 72d Psalm. There we see a ruler who judges 
with perfect righteousness, whose full sympathy is with the 
poor and oppressed, whose chief glory is in righting human 
wrong, whose reign is attended by the prosperity of peace and 
plenty, and whose name is revered by all he rules. 

Israel's ideal king, therefore, represented two parties, viz., 
his God and his people, to both of whom he was faithful. It 
is remarkable to what extent this double relationship under- 
lies all the descriptions of him which have come down to us. 
It appears even in single verses, such as 2 Sam. 23 : 3, "One 
that ruleth over men righteously, that ruleth in the fear of 
God"; or Jer. 30: 21. "And their ruler shall proceed from the 
midst Of them, * * * and he shall approach unto me" 
(Yahweh). Isaiah, in the description of 11:1-5, starts with 
a statement of the ideal king's relation to the people — "there 
shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse" ; then 



55 See Schurer, The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, 
Div. 2, II, pp. 184-6. 

45 



comes a statement of his relation to Yahweh — "the spirit of 
Jehovah shall rest upon him"; and the conclusion (vs. 3-5) 
is a statement of the logical outworkings of this double rela- 
tionship. 

The most notable feature of the future ruler described by 
Ezekiel is the humility of his position. This appears in his 
title, which was nasi' instead of melek, and in a corresponding 
limitation of his functions. Indeed, he was to be little more 
than the chief patron of the church. Ezekiel's conception was 
undoubtedly due to his total lack of sympathy with the con- 
duct of the monarchy in his own day. It is really an indica- 
tion of the strength which the monarchical institution had in 
the minds of the people that he incorporated it, even in modi- 
fied form, in his ideal state. However, this nasi', with all his 
limitations, was yet Yahweh's servant (34:23, 24), and by 
providing sacrifices on all the feast days for the nation at 
large, he showed, in about the only way open to him, his 
national representative capacity (45:17, 22). His actions, 
furthermore, were to be free from oppression and in accord 
with the principle of righteousness (45:9-12; 46:18). 

Little is said of the ideal king in the Apocryphal Books of 
the Old Testament, but with the rise of Apocalyptic, especially 
after the overthrow of the Maccabean dynasty, he comes into 
prominence again, only in a changed form. The harsh treat- 
ment to which the Jews had been subjected begot a harsh 
disposition toward their oppressors, and, indeed, toward all 
who were outside the pale of their faith. Hence the ideal 
king assumed a more terrible aspect. He became more closely 
associated with the power of God, and, particularly, more 
severe in his treatment of the heathen. And yet he remained 
the representative, par excellence, of the deity and the nation, 
and continued to rule in accord with the divine will and the 
principle of justice to all men. In the Sibylline Oracles he is 
a king, sent of God, who will put a stop to all war, and, in 
everything he does, will act "not according to his own counsel, 
but in obedience to the decrees of the Great God" (III : 652-6). 
In the Psalms of Solomon, he is a son of David, "a righteous 
king and one taught of God" (XVII: 35 ). 56 A discussion of 



56 See Schiirer, The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, 
Div. 2, II, p. 140 ff. 

46 



Daniel's Son of Man (7: 13) as a messianic title 57 does not 
come within our bounds, but unless one regards its use as 
purely mechanical, it indicates another point of contact 
between the ideal king and the people he rules. Finally it is 
interesting to note that the recorded words of Jesus which 
describe the general nature of his mission, imply a recog- 
nition of the two-fold relationship and corresponding obli- 
gations of the ideal king. "My meat is to do the will of him 
that sent me and to accomplish his work" (John 4: 34). "The 
Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister" 
(Matt. 20:28). 

These idealizations did not arise merely because of a gen- 
eral dissatisfaction with the rule of the historic kings. The 
shortcomings of the kings and the final destruction of the 
monarchy undoubtedly had much to do with throwing the 
ideal picture into clearer relief. But the principles involved 
were nation-old. The Hebrew genius in government always 
displayed two sides ; it was religious and it was democratic. 
The historic monarchy never measured up to the ideal, but it 
could not overthrow the ideal. From first to last, though suc- 
cessively modified by the personal equation of each king and 
his contemporaries, it was hedged about by two cardinal limi- 
tations, viz., God's law and the people's will. 



57 See Enoch 46 : 1, 2 ; 48, 2, etc. 

47 



BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

E. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, 2nd Ed., ist V., Cotta, 
1907-08. 

G. H. Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, Vol. 2-3. Gottingen, 
1864-66. 

B. Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 2 V. Berlin, 1887-88. 

C. Piepenbring, Histoire du peuple d'Israel. Paris, 1898. 
H. Graetz, History of the Jews, ist V. Philadelphia, 1891. 

E. Renan, Histoire generate et systeme compare des langues 
Semitiques. Paris, 1863. 

R. Kittel, Geschichte der Hebaer, 2nd V.. Gotha, 1892. 

W. Nowach, Lehrbuch der hebraischen Archaologie. Freiburg, 1894. 

J. Benzinger, Hebraische Archaologie. Freiburg, 1894. 

E. Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre N fichbarstamme. Halle, 1906. 

C. M. Doughty, Travels in Arabia Deserts. Cambridge, 1888. 

G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land. London, 189.4. 

G. A. Smith, Jerusalem : the Topography, Economics and History. 
London, 1907. 

J. G. Frazer, Lectures on the Early History of the Kingship. 
London, 1905. 

S. Oettli, Das Konigsideal des Alten Testament. Greifswold, 1899. 

K. Budde, Schatzung des Konigtums im Alten Testament. Mar- 
burg, 1903. 

L. W. King, History of Sumer and Akkad. London, 1910. 

C. F. Kent and F. K. Sanders, Growth of Israelitish Law, Yale 
Biblical and Semitic Studies, 1902. 

E. C. Wines, Laws of the Ancient Hebrews. New York, 1855. 
J. Benzinger, Art., "Law and Justice/ in Ency. Bib. 
J. F. McCurdy, History, Prophecy and the Monuments, 3 V. 
New York, 1894-1901. 

D. B. MacDonald, Development of Muslim Theology, Jurispru- 
dence and Constitutional Theory. New York, 1903. 

D. H. Miiller, Art, "Sabaeans," in Ency. Brit., nth Ed. 
R. Pietschmann, Geschichte der Phonizier. Berlin, 1889. 

E. Meyer, Art., "Phoenicians," in Ency. Bib. 

C. H. Cornill, Israelitische Prophetismus. Strasburg, 1906. 

D. W. Amram, The Zekenim or Council of Elders, Jour. Bib. 
Lit., 1900. 

M. Sulzberger, The Am-ha-Aretz. Philadelphia, 1909. 

E. Schiirer, History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus 
Christ, 5 V. Edinborough, 1890-91. 

H. Gressmann, Der Ursprung der israelitisch-jiidischen Escha- 
tologie. Gottingen, 1905. 

48 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



022 021 589 1 



